Science works on observation. That’s were we get scientific laws from. Observation provides evidence, evidence proof.
You need to understand basic concepts to argue certain things, and you’re so uninformed this is starting to get sad.
Do yourself a favour, and do some reading. It’s available at most libraries, and certainly on the internet.
“Science’s theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don’t float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.”
Oh and you’ll love this one…just to show I have a sense of humour…
“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”
Ashley Montague
“A California Institute of Technology (Caltech)-led team of researchers and clinicians has published the first proof that a targeted nanoparticle – used as an experimental therapeutic and injected directly into a patient’s bloodstream – can traffic into tumors, deliver double-stranded small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and turn off an important cancer gene using a mechanism known as RNA interference (RNAi)…”
No, that’s actually my point; I’m not trying to hinge the behavior of the lioness on her ability to perceive alternate outcomes, nor do I want it for the dog.
I’m saying a dog can hump the table for the same reason it humps the occasional female canine in heat – it gets pleasure from humping somewhat indiscriminately – and sometimes it does him no reproductive good (the former) and sometimes it does plenty (the latter), and he can spend his life doing both without ever perceiving the pass-along-genes math in either situation. What’s important is that his behavior pays off evolutionarily, regardless of whether he realizes it.
I’m likewise saying a lioness can adopt the occasional oryx for the same reason it’s willing to adopt an orphaned lion cub; just figure lionesses get pleasure from adopting somewhat indiscriminately, and figure that sometimes this or that lioness gets no reproductive benefit (when it’s an oryx) but sometimes it nets plenty (ian orphaned relative), and such lionesses can spend their lives doing either without ever perceiving the pass-along-genes math. What’s important is that the behavior pays off evolutionarily, regardless of whether any of 'em realize it.
But the trait isn’t Adopt An Unrelated Animal, which carries no benefit and some cost/risk. The trait is Adopt An Animal Which May Or May Not Be Related, which carries benefits that can and do outweigh the costs/risks; you occasionally adopt an unrelated animal, but you often enough adopt a related one, and that’s good enough to keep the somewhat indiscriminate Adopt An Animal Which May Or May Not Be Related trait alive; the former trait would die out pretty fast, but the latter would endure – regardless of whether the possessors of either trait ever perceive any evolutionary consequences.
Well, look, if you don’t think I’ve come close to explaining basic altruism, then of course you won’t think I can explain absolutely selfless behavior; that’s obvious. And I of course figure both are explained the same way: altruism of either type does a good enough job of paying off evolutionarily over the long run. For a start, figure that being capable of feats that constitute absolutely selfless commitment pays off when it helps your own kin survive, which is ideal – and then figure that a somewhat indiscriminate knack for such feats of self-sacrifice will sometimes benefit your kin and sometimes benefit unrelated folks, which is less than ideal but still good enough to survive.
And then, sure, add in a new layer by figuring in how a society can look out for its own interests by encouraging self-sacrifice among its members – but we don’t need to get into that yet; the idea works fine by itself, IMHO: a behavior that sometimes nets good results for your relatives and sometimes nets good results for unrelated individuals can be good enough to keep on keeping on.
Even though you admit that benevolence nets better results in the long run? Goodness.
Let’s simplify this.
1> The dog humps the table leg for pleasure, therefore it is has a direct and immediate motivation. There is NO motivation for an act of benevolence, indeed there is cost. There is NO benefit (of sensation or genetics) for a ‘stranger’ adoption, indeed there is cost.
2> You suggest a lioness may derive pleasure from adopting an oryx. As an obvious aside, this is purely speculative, more so because science cannot verify let alone evolution explain such a feeling. But more pertinently perhaps, this ‘pleasure’ is not physical, it is intangible, just like benevolence. Therefore it too would have to evolve, and so on, which makes this explanaiton somewhat circular.
2> Consider for a moment what you are proposing.
Benevolent actions ‘appeared’ as a result of evolution.
These actions appeared despite having either a neutral or negative benefit (biological or sensory) to the creature.
These actions appeared either by mutation - of which virtually none are beneficial, or by natural selection - which would require a benefit, yet overwhelmingly benevolence bestows no benefit.
It just doesn’t stack up.
With all due respect, I have seen hundreds of your posts over the last few years, and it is my view that you know very, very little of the bible. And thats despite the fact you’ve said claimed to have read it 8 times, or 24 times or whatever.
On the contrary, in almost all cases I would argue the opposite. Perhaps you could explain how Mother Theresa benefitted from giving her life to the poor of Calcutta?
Actually it does.
But you either can’t or won’t understand it. Don’t you think it’s weird that every single person who has appeared in this thread thinks you’re incorrect?
What are the odds that everyone here is wrong and you are right? You know that you haven’t actually studied any of this. You know that you have zero science background. You know that you’re ignorant.
So why do you assume that your ignorant view is correct?
Mother Theresa probably had a lot of motivations. Humans aren’t required to act on their impulses. Couple that with the mind-numbing stupidity and indoctrination of religions, well we can do a lot of things that aren’t evolutionarily related.
That said, helping people is encoded in us as a survival trait. As you have been told no less than eleventy billion times.
Can you really not understand this? The lioness would get pleasure from adopting an oryx, otherwise why would she do it? Do you think that she’s making some kind of long-term planned tradeoff of her possible behaviors? Her brain is wired in such a way that adopting cute little animals is what she wants to do, just like the dog who occasionally humps a leg.
Yet it was you who made the first explanation of a non-human animal’s behavior by attributing it to pleasure. Remember? It was just a few posts ago, when you said that a dog humped a table leg for pleasure. So now your arrogant assertions are just speculative? It’s hard to keep up with your shifting positions.
And just like the dog’s pleasure in humping a table leg. Pleasure is an emotion - it’s never physical. Again, you’re refuting your own points from just a few posts ago.
I’m with Waldo here - you seem to recognize the benefit of altruistic behavior to the species, right? A social species that’s altruistic would certainly survive better than one that’s always vicious to its neighbors, right? Do you not understand that this is exactly the kind of thing that natural selection selects for?
1> I define creationism as the position that he natural universe is the creation of a supernatural being. There are young earth creationists, and old earth creationists (of which I subscribe, and which can embrace theistic evolution).
2> If Dawkins is using the term to mean only young earth creationists, that’s fine, but he should say so. In any event he is dishonest, because he also refused to debate Stephen Meyer in late 2009 for the same reason, yet Meyer is not a young earth creationist.
1> Truth is not determined by majority.
2> If you have a rebuttal, make it.
It’s called “sympathy”. Or “compassion”. Or something about powerful drives and the mothering instinct. Whatever it is, it’s pretty much pleasurable by definition, as CurtC aptly points out.
Again, evolution could of course explain it: such a feeling would result in more adoptions, which more often result in good outcomes than bad.
The problem for your analysis is that benevolence does bestow a benefit. If, after all these pages, you still don’t get that, then maybe there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
No, you wouldn’t.
I’d asked whether you think benevolent behavior leads to good results, and you said “yes” – adding that the question isn’t value, but origin. I added that reciprocal altruism is found in the jungle, along with raising offspring and hunting in packs and so on, and you agreed – in CAPITAL LETTERS, for some reason – that altruism is observable in the wild now. Where is this “in almost all cases I would argue the opposite” weirdness suddenly coming from?
1> If there is no creator, evolution must account for everything about us. How then can you say “we can do a lot of things that aren’t evolutionarily related”?
2> I am not interested in what you SAY. I am interested in what you can argue or substantiate. So far you have done neither.
Truth isn’t determined by majority. Scientific consensus is. You are ignoring things that are very, very well supported.
You also ignorantly think that somehow science provides proof. This isn’t true. Science provides evidence. And when evidence for something is overwhelming, our confidence is high.
You ignore things that have high amounts of evidence, and you do it so that you can believe in something that has no evidence. That’s just silly.
Ah, Curt, we are debating ‘why she would do it’, remember? Get with the program.
Can you provide me with an example of where I have ignored things “that have high amounts of evidence”?
Evolution never intended you to use a computer. But you’re using one. You’re taking advantage of a set of abilities that were evolved for other things. Your wonderful human color vision is interpreting the screen. Your capacity for language is translating the icons into concepts and your fingers, the ones that have evolved for you to grasp a spear are clicking away. As it happens your gifts are wasted on producing the inane drivel you’ve been posting, but whatcha gonna do?
Sure I have. You’ve ignored it. Possibly because you’re too invested in your silly ideology.